Facts
The dispute is between A. and company X. Ltd. In 2010, X. Ltd. obtained a default judgment from the District Court of Meilen ordering the transfer of A.'s shares in company Z. GmbH to X. Ltd. In 2011, A. filed a new action against X. Ltd. requesting the transfer of these same shares or, subsidiarily, the payment of damages, on the grounds that X. Ltd. had obtained the previous judgment by fraudulent means.
The District Court of Meilen dismissed the new action on the grounds that the previous judgment had acquired the authority of res judicata. A. appealed this decision, but the appeal was dismissed by the Cantonal Court.
A. then filed a civil law appeal with the Federal Tribunal against X. Ltd., requesting the annulment of the Cantonal Court's judgment and the restoration of his initial conclusions.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It considered that the previous judgment, even if it had been obtained fraudulently, had the authority of res judicata. Therefore, A. could not challenge this judgment in a new action for damages, but rather had to act for the revision of the initial judgment.
The Federal Tribunal reiterated that the authority of res judicata attaches not only to the operative part of the judgment, but also to the facts that formed the basis of the decision, regardless of the parties' knowledge or the judge's consideration of them. Thus, even…